Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Donald Trump’s distaste for killing foreigners has been noted as one of his biggest failings by the PB panzer corps (armchair division) many times before. We are in truly dark times when a US President gets queasy about half a million deaths.
The ending of various USAID programmes is going to kill tens of thousands of foreigners. Trump has not the slightest problem with it.
I strongly doubt it. The ending of bizarre and troubling funding of such organisations as the BBC by USAID is certainly going to do very little harm.
“BBC Media Action was founded in 1999 by the BBC as its international development charity. We apply the editorial standards of the BBC, build on its values and often work closely with the BBC World Service and other BBC departments. However, we are legally and financially independent and work to a distinct mission. Originally known as BBC World Service Trust, we changed our name to BBC Media Action in December 2011.”
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Donald Trump’s distaste for killing foreigners has been noted as one of his biggest failings by the PB panzer corps (armchair division) many times before. We are in truly dark times when a US President gets queasy about half a million deaths.
The ending of various USAID programmes is going to kill tens of thousands of foreigners. Trump has not the slightest problem with it.
I strongly doubt it. The ending of bizarre and troubling funding of such organisations as the BBC by USAID is certainly going to do very little harm.
It would appear from your link that basic emergency relief programmes are being retained (I thought all aid had ceased) but funding of foundations and the charitable sector has been severely curtailed). I agree with this and something similar is what we need in the UK. We have 'charities' here that make less than 5% of their money from donations, and are almost wholly funded by Government grant. They then campaign from their unassaible 'charity' pulpit for policy changes in areas like immigration. It is a complete racket and if the USA has anything similar (which I strongly suspect it did/does) it's a very good thing that funding is being withdrawn. The Spectator has an interesting podcast on the above if anyone is interested.
The government funding isn't just random money given to Save the Children etc to do with what they will. The government is paying them to deliver specific programmes on behalf of the government, because they can typically deliver better outcomes at a lower cost than if the government were to try to deliver the project themselves. By employing local people on the ground, for instance. And while as in all human endeavours there will be some inefficiency and waste, there is probably more effort put into measuring outcomes and delivering value for money than in any other area of public spending. It's also worth pointing out that a good chunk of our "aid budget" is actually diverted into housing asylum seakers in this country, not spent on humanitarian assistance abroad. Off the top of my head I think it will be about half of it once the cuts take effect.
I would like to see a blanket ban on any taxpayers money going to any "charities" that spend money campaigning for taxpayers money. The grift is circular and needs to be broken.
If they're genuinely a charity just providing a service, then that wouldn't harm them.
Presumably you would apply this lobbying ban to any organisation or company that receives government money? So no defence industry lobbying? How would this even be enforced? They're not spending the government money on research and advocacy, that comes from private donations, so you could easily split the organisation in two anyway, I guess. This all sounds quite illiberal.
Its funny Topping how during and after Covid you were able to recognise that "but people are dying" isn't a surefire argument winner to take away people's liberties, even temporarily, yet you seem to think "but people are dying" is a surefire argument winner to permanently subjugate people to living under a totalitarian dictatorship.
There are some fates worse than death. If people are willing to fight against dictatorships I respect that, I don't think that people are dying is a reason to end a just war.
That could very well be the most hypocritical and least self-aware comment that anybody has made on PB, ever. Well done to you.
Being a Ukrainian Ultra on pb.com requires a certain level of intellectual incoherence and unending attraction to amor fati. The following two lemmata must be simultaneously upheld:
1. The armed forces of the Russian Federation are so weak that a broken failed state that's a quarter of the size can, if supplied with endless amounts of money and weapons, inflict a stinging defeat of such magnitude that the invaders will be repelled and the Russian military threat will be neutralised in perpetuity.
2. The armed forces of the Russian Federation are so strong that the UK must embark on a socially ruinous program of rearmament or the double headed eagle, twice imperially crowned will be flying over Piccadilly Circus by next (Orthodox) Christmas.
Its funny Topping how during and after Covid you were able to recognise that "but people are dying" isn't a surefire argument winner to take away people's liberties, even temporarily, yet you seem to think "but people are dying" is a surefire argument winner to permanently subjugate people to living under a totalitarian dictatorship.
There are some fates worse than death. If people are willing to fight against dictatorships I respect that, I don't think that people are dying is a reason to end a just war.
That could very well be the most hypocritical and least self-aware comment that anybody has made on PB, ever. Well done to you.
Being a Ukrainian Ultra on pb.com requires a certain level of intellectual incoherence and unending attraction to amor fati. The following two lemmata must be simultaneously upheld:
1. The armed forces of the Russian Federation are so weak that a broken failed state that's a quarter of the size can, if supplied with endless amounts of money and weapons, inflict a stinging defeat of such magnitude that the invaders will be repelled and the Russian military threat will be neutralised in perpetuity.
2. The armed forces of the Russian Federation are so strong that the UK must embark on a socially ruinous program of rearmament or the double headed eagle, twice imperially crowned will be flying over Piccadilly Circus by next (Orthodox) Christmas.
Or 2 simultaneously held views that are entirely consistent.
1. Russia is a medium -sized bully that can be defeated if Western nations stand up to it. 2. Failure to stand up to it will see our friends and allies overrun.
German state elections today in the "Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg". Approx polling:
SPD 33% CDU 18% Greens 17% Left 12% Afd 10% BSW, FDP and Volt around 3% each.
Another SPD-Green coalition nailed on.
Meanwhile in the West and parts of the South, carnival is in full swing. Interesting to see what the Düsseldorf political floats are tomorrow, given how quickly things have been moving the last weeks.
It may be Starmer's appeasement of Trump and offer of a state visit will win back a few voters lost to Reform but voters concerned about Trump and Farage's closeness to him in particular likely go LD or Green not Labour. So they the LDs and Greens could be the biggest winners
We need to increase funding to the BBC. And setup programmes that can flood the zone with facts. Outgun the Russian bots and their minions and beat them at their own game.
Fuck that. We need to abolish the license fee and let the BBC find their own funding. Subscription, ads or whatever.
Nah 10x its funding. More free speech. Balance out the manure pumped out from Moscow.
I find it better amusing that you are advocating output from one state broadcaster to counter the output of another state broadcaster.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
He said that the expense was a long way behind stopping the killing. Great farmland though Ukraine no doubt has, it is bodies, said Trump, that are stopping the bullets.
He says he wants to stop the killing as a primary aim. I have no doubt he also wants to go down in history as the Peacemaker President who touched the world with his hands and, lo, the world reacted. But he said he wanted to stop the killing.
He has no interest in stopping the killing. It doesn't even enter into his mind that it matters if lots of Ukranians, Russians and anyone else dies. He wouldn't even care if lots of Americans died as long as it didn't affect his own prospects, wealth and ego.
This is the lesson that some on here have not yet learnt. Maybe because they don't want to face it. Trump has no interest in helping or protecting Ukraine or Europe. His interests are purely transactional and we don't matter. All these questions about how or whether we will be able to defend against Russia or help Uraine are based on the erroneous assumption that there is a choice, that Trump will be persuaded to change his mind and help in our defence. He won't.
Once you accept that you realise that it is not a quastion of whether we want to rearm and challenge Putin. It is simple fact that we have to. And the best way to ensure my son and daughter don't end up having to fight in Europe is to make sure Putin loses - or at least fails to succeed - in Ukraine.
Given what he is doing to USAID and to various programmes domestically, it's very clear Trump has no concern about stopping people from dying. As you say, he is entirely transactional and has no understanding of the US's interests being in any way separate to his own. This is why he cannot see how withdrawing from a leadership role is going to do so much harm to the American economy.
USAID was and is one of the most important tools of propagating the global US hegemony. No surprise that PB is furious that Trump is curtailing it.
Yes, by saving a lot of lives the US certainly made people feel better disposed towards it. Now that a lot of people are going to die because of the cuts that is probably going to change.
How sweet that you think it was designed to save a lot of lives.
How sweet that you think that I am as naive as that. A person whose life is saved as the result of a political decision is just as alive as a person as a person whose life is saved by an act altruism.
So you would have funded the tyrant and perpetuated their cruel rule to keep people alive. It's certainly how we've operated before.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Donald Trump’s distaste for killing foreigners has been noted as one of his biggest failings by the PB panzer corps (armchair division) many times before. We are in truly dark times when a US President gets queasy about half a million deaths.
The ending of various USAID programmes is going to kill tens of thousands of foreigners. Trump has not the slightest problem with it.
I strongly doubt it. The ending of bizarre and troubling funding of such organisations as the BBC by USAID is certainly going to do very little harm.
"Now, Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2024 and already in 2025, are facing an 80% reduction in already-insufficient resources due to recent USAID cuts."
Mutual Aid Sudan is funded by the following organisations (ai)
The Coalition for Mutual Aid in Sudan is supported by 15 philanthropies and other organizations, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Center for Humanitarian Leadership, and the Center for Disaster Philanthropy.
Leaving aside the fact that anything with Bill Gates is a huge red flag to me, why can't the organisations that actually set up this initiative, who it would appear are not short of a bob or two, fund it?
We know you believe in conspiracy theories. If we didn’t, the fact the you think funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a “huge red flag” would tell us.
Trump's version of "peace" is a kind of Pax Mafiosa, where powerful bosses (himself, Putin, Xi), bestride the world like colossi, and lesser peoples must do as they're told, or face the consequences.
A man who wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza is not a peacemaker.
German state elections today in the "Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg". Approx polling:
SPD 33% CDU 18% Greens 17% Left 12% Afd 10% BSW, FDP and Volt around 3% each.
Another SPD-Green coalition nailed on.
Meanwhile in the West and parts of the South, carnival is in full swing. Interesting to see what the Düsseldorf political floats are tomorrow, given how quickly things have been moving the last weeks.
I went to the Dusseldorf carnival a few years ago, always colourful and lots of fancy dress parties too
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
He said that the expense was a long way behind stopping the killing. Great farmland though Ukraine no doubt has, it is bodies, said Trump, that are stopping the bullets.
He says he wants to stop the killing as a primary aim. I have no doubt he also wants to go down in history as the Peacemaker President who touched the world with his hands and, lo, the world reacted. But he said he wanted to stop the killing.
But isn't that what Chamberlain thought he was doing at Munich? Hitler's assurance was not worth the paper it was written on.
There is a theory that Chamberlain was cleverly playing for time as the UK rearmed itself.
That could apply to Starmer holding on to Trump to keep US sanctions against Russia and US arms supplies to Ukraine going, while Europe rearms independently of the US.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
The price he is willing to pay is other people’s lives condemned to a life of slavery and Europe’s security put at risk
“Peace at any price” is not a position to be admired
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
He said that the expense was a long way behind stopping the killing. Great farmland though Ukraine no doubt has, it is bodies, said Trump, that are stopping the bullets.
He says he wants to stop the killing as a primary aim. I have no doubt he also wants to go down in history as the Peacemaker President who touched the world with his hands and, lo, the world reacted. But he said he wanted to stop the killing.
But isn't that what Chamberlain thought he was doing at Munich? Hitler's assurance was not worth the paper it was written on.
There is a theory that Chamberlain was cleverly playing for time as the UK rearmed itself.
That could apply to Starmer holding on to Trump to keep US sanctions against Russia and US arms supplies to Ukraine going, while Europe rearms independently of the US.
I think that’s exactly what Chamberlain was doing, but of course he did want to believe in that note, and he allowed himself to believe that peace on the continent might be achieved as a result. He was no imbecile, his greatest flaw was being somewhat naive of Hitler’s nature - the idea that he wouldn’t be coming back for more.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
He said that the expense was a long way behind stopping the killing. Great farmland though Ukraine no doubt has, it is bodies, said Trump, that are stopping the bullets.
He says he wants to stop the killing as a primary aim. I have no doubt he also wants to go down in history as the Peacemaker President who touched the world with his hands and, lo, the world reacted. But he said he wanted to stop the killing.
But isn't that what Chamberlain thought he was doing at Munich? Hitler's assurance was not worth the paper it was written on.
There is a theory that Chamberlain was cleverly playing for time as the UK rearmed itself.
That could apply to Starmer holding on to Trump to keep US sanctions against Russia and US arms supplies to Ukraine going, while Europe rearms independently of the US.
According to his own diaries, letters and records of conversations with others, Chamberlin was
- playing for time (peak rearmament in the U.K. was scheduled for 1941-42* - slightly before the planned German peak) - an attempt to take the wind out of Hitlers sails by giving way on incorporating German populations into Germany. The theory went, if you get rid of the genuine issues, then it’s harder to push for war. - A belief that a genuine attempt at peace was required. It might succeed (and save millions of lives) or it would guarantee unanimity in the country if war came.
*UK rearmament started in 1932. Before Hitler came to power. Kicked off by the Pocket Battleships being laid down.
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Donald Trump’s distaste for killing foreigners has been noted as one of his biggest failings by the PB panzer corps (armchair division) many times before. We are in truly dark times when a US President gets queasy about half a million deaths.
The ending of various USAID programmes is going to kill tens of thousands of foreigners. Trump has not the slightest problem with it.
I strongly doubt it. The ending of bizarre and troubling funding of such organisations as the BBC by USAID is certainly going to do very little harm.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Donald Trump’s distaste for killing foreigners has been noted as one of his biggest failings by the PB panzer corps (armchair division) many times before. We are in truly dark times when a US President gets queasy about half a million deaths.
The ending of various USAID programmes is going to kill tens of thousands of foreigners. Trump has not the slightest problem with it.
I strongly doubt it. The ending of bizarre and troubling funding of such organisations as the BBC by USAID is certainly going to do very little harm.
"Now, Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2024 and already in 2025, are facing an 80% reduction in already-insufficient resources due to recent USAID cuts."
Mutual Aid Sudan is funded by the following organisations (ai)
The Coalition for Mutual Aid in Sudan is supported by 15 philanthropies and other organizations, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Center for Humanitarian Leadership, and the Center for Disaster Philanthropy.
Leaving aside the fact that anything with Bill Gates is a huge red flag to me, why can't the organisations that actually set up this initiative, who it would appear are not short of a bob or two, fund it?
We know you believe in conspiracy theories. If we didn’t, the fact the you think funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a “huge red flag” would tell us.
Bill Gates' publicly stated views and agenda are quite enough of a red flag to me, leaving aside anything else. I also note that his wife says she divorced him due to his association with Epstein, so I'm not sure he qualifies as the all-round nice guy you seem to suppose he is.
Prince Andrew has become the punchline of a joke due to his association with Epstein, but Bill still seems to be feted (by some) as a wonderful global philanthropist. Now having to do a bit more actual philanthropy because his charities are going to be given less grants by the US Government. Which we're meant to feel terrible about.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
He said that the expense was a long way behind stopping the killing. Great farmland though Ukraine no doubt has, it is bodies, said Trump, that are stopping the bullets.
He says he wants to stop the killing as a primary aim. I have no doubt he also wants to go down in history as the Peacemaker President who touched the world with his hands and, lo, the world reacted. But he said he wanted to stop the killing.
He has no interest in stopping the killing. It doesn't even enter into his mind that it matters if lots of Ukranians, Russians and anyone else dies. He wouldn't even care if lots of Americans died as long as it didn't affect his own prospects, wealth and ego.
This is the lesson that some on here have not yet learnt. Maybe because they don't want to face it. Trump has no interest in helping or protecting Ukraine or Europe. His interests are purely transactional and we don't matter. All these questions about how or whether we will be able to defend against Russia or help Uraine are based on the erroneous assumption that there is a choice, that Trump will be persuaded to change his mind and help in our defence. He won't.
Once you accept that you realise that it is not a quastion of whether we want to rearm and challenge Putin. It is simple fact that we have to. And the best way to ensure my son and daughter don't end up having to fight in Europe is to make sure Putin loses - or at least fails to succeed - in Ukraine.
I think he wants a peaceful world because conflict detracts attention from him. He wants to stride the world with all eyes on his best ever trade deals.
But he has also said that he wants people to stop dying in large numbers in Ukraine. I don't have a huge problem in reconciling the two views.
As for Europe rearming I'm not so sure this will be a huge political consensus.
He just wants the bauble, because Obama, Jimmy Carter and Martin Luther King got one
“Elon Musk, a key figure in President Donald Trump’s administration and head of the United States Department of Government Efficiency, has backed calls for the United States to leave the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
“Musk voiced his support on X (formerly Twitter) on Saturday night when he responded “I agree” to a post stating, “It’s time to leave NATO and the UN.” His endorsement aligns with growing calls from some Republican lawmakers, including Senator Mike Lee, to reconsider the US commitment to the alliance.”
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Donald Trump’s distaste for killing foreigners has been noted as one of his biggest failings by the PB panzer corps (armchair division) many times before. We are in truly dark times when a US President gets queasy about half a million deaths.
The ending of various USAID programmes is going to kill tens of thousands of foreigners. Trump has not the slightest problem with it.
I strongly doubt it. The ending of bizarre and troubling funding of such organisations as the BBC by USAID is certainly going to do very little harm.
"Now, Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2024 and already in 2025, are facing an 80% reduction in already-insufficient resources due to recent USAID cuts."
Mutual Aid Sudan is funded by the following organisations (ai)
The Coalition for Mutual Aid in Sudan is supported by 15 philanthropies and other organizations, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Center for Humanitarian Leadership, and the Center for Disaster Philanthropy.
Leaving aside the fact that anything with Bill Gates is a huge red flag to me, why can't the organisations that actually set up this initiative, who it would appear are not short of a bob or two, fund it?
We know you believe in conspiracy theories. If we didn’t, the fact the you think funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a “huge red flag” would tell us.
Bill Gates' publicly stated views and agenda are quite enough of a red flag to me, leaving aside anything else. I also note that his wife says she divorced him due to his association with Epstein, so I'm not sure he qualifies as the all-round nice guy you seem to suppose he is.
Prince Andrew has become the punchline of a joke due to his association with Epstein, but Bill still seems to be feted (by some) as a wonderful global philanthropist. Now having to do a bit more actual philanthropy because his charities are going to be given less grants by the US Government. Which we're meant to feel terrible about.
No the red flag is your interpretation of his stated views and agenda which bear little relation to reality. They are what tell us you are a lunatic conspiacy theorist.
Is he a nice guy? I have no idea. Is he wrapped up in the Epstein stuff? Again I have no idea. But neither do you.
What I do know is the work he and his foundation have been doing has been helping to save the lives of hundreds of thousands - probably millions - of people around the world.
And unless you are one of the anti-vaxxer conspiracy morons then it should be obvious to you as well.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
To my mind, Russia's biggest problems, in the war, are:
(a) They have to keep attacking. Their opponents are defending, and constantly bleeding them.
(b) They have a choice whether or not to fight. Ukraine does not.
You're a military historian. How do you see the endgame.
I don't see Russia being able to sustain the losses of men and material that it was suffering in the last four months of last year (40-50,000 casualties per month). The attacks have certainly slackened since the start of the year.
Russia's economy is clearly deteriorating, but Putin has a vast apparatus of repression, to prevent revolt.
We've also seen that Ukraine does not have the means to recapture the lost territories. So, I think at some stage, the war will peter out into a cold war/cold peace. Technically, the war will continue, but in reality, it will grind to a halt. To my mind, the European side of NATO has to ensure that Ukraine is in as strong a position as possible at that point, in order to hold onto the remaining 80% of the country, and assist in rebuilding the Ukrainian economy.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
He said that the expense was a long way behind stopping the killing. Great farmland though Ukraine no doubt has, it is bodies, said Trump, that are stopping the bullets.
He says he wants to stop the killing as a primary aim. I have no doubt he also wants to go down in history as the Peacemaker President who touched the world with his hands and, lo, the world reacted. But he said he wanted to stop the killing.
He has no interest in stopping the killing. It doesn't even enter into his mind that it matters if lots of Ukranians, Russians and anyone else dies. He wouldn't even care if lots of Americans died as long as it didn't affect his own prospects, wealth and ego.
This is the lesson that some on here have not yet learnt. Maybe because they don't want to face it. Trump has no interest in helping or protecting Ukraine or Europe. His interests are purely transactional and we don't matter. All these questions about how or whether we will be able to defend against Russia or help Uraine are based on the erroneous assumption that there is a choice, that Trump will be persuaded to change his mind and help in our defence. He won't.
Once you accept that you realise that it is not a quastion of whether we want to rearm and challenge Putin. It is simple fact that we have to. And the best way to ensure my son and daughter don't end up having to fight in Europe is to make sure Putin loses - or at least fails to succeed - in Ukraine.
I think he wants a peaceful world because conflict detracts attention from him. He wants to stride the world with all eyes on his best ever trade deals.
But he has also said that he wants people to stop dying in large numbers in Ukraine. I don't have a huge problem in reconciling the two views.
As for Europe rearming I'm not so sure this will be a huge political consensus.
He just wants the bauble, because Obama, Jimmy Carter and Martin Luther King got one
Trump wants to buy a fairly strong signifier of not being a shit with no redeeming features while continuing to be a shit with no redeeming features. It fits in with his everything is for sale ethos.
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
The worst thing about this Ramadan this year is that Eid is likely to be at weekend and I cannot use work to get out of going to the mosque.
When I worked in 24x7 ops, our Muslim colleagues all volunteered for night shifts during Ramadan. It turns out fasting during daylight hours is a damn sight easier if you are asleep after working nights.
I believe those travelling are allowed to break the fast. This includes those traveling by car, ship, airplane, or camel.
Get yourself a camel, TSE. That will be quite the commute...
At the weekend, it’s likely to be a rail replacement camel.
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
You say you despise Bibi, but you seem to defend everything he does. Could you tell me 5 things the Netanyahu government has done that you don’t support?
The only critique I'd agree with (the only one) of the Ukraine sceptics is that Russia is on the verge of giving up.
I don't think it is - even though we wish it would: there are echoes of the wishful thinking behind Kamila Harris's inevitable victory here.
However, we must back Ukraine for as long as it takes until they give up. And that could be another 10 years.
Agreed completely.
I don't know when Russia will fall, it could be within the year or it could be ten years from now, but we should stand firm until they do.
However what I do firmly believe is they are closer to that point now than they were in 2022. Much closer.
Maybe the day will come when Ukrainians don't want to fight anymore, and if that day comes then I would respect their choice. But unless or until that choice of theirs is made, and unless or until Russia is defeated, we should unconditionally remain steadfast supporters of Ukraine to continue the fight as long as they see fit.
And give them every bit of support we can and that they need to bleed Russia dry, as they're currently doing.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
He said that the expense was a long way behind stopping the killing. Great farmland though Ukraine no doubt has, it is bodies, said Trump, that are stopping the bullets.
He says he wants to stop the killing as a primary aim. I have no doubt he also wants to go down in history as the Peacemaker President who touched the world with his hands and, lo, the world reacted. But he said he wanted to stop the killing.
He has no interest in stopping the killing. It doesn't even enter into his mind that it matters if lots of Ukranians, Russians and anyone else dies. He wouldn't even care if lots of Americans died as long as it didn't affect his own prospects, wealth and ego.
This is the lesson that some on here have not yet learnt. Maybe because they don't want to face it. Trump has no interest in helping or protecting Ukraine or Europe. His interests are purely transactional and we don't matter. All these questions about how or whether we will be able to defend against Russia or help Uraine are based on the erroneous assumption that there is a choice, that Trump will be persuaded to change his mind and help in our defence. He won't.
Once you accept that you realise that it is not a quastion of whether we want to rearm and challenge Putin. It is simple fact that we have to. And the best way to ensure my son and daughter don't end up having to fight in Europe is to make sure Putin loses - or at least fails to succeed - in Ukraine.
I think he wants a peaceful world because conflict detracts attention from him. He wants to stride the world with all eyes on his best ever trade deals.
But he has also said that he wants people to stop dying in large numbers in Ukraine. I don't have a huge problem in reconciling the two views.
As for Europe rearming I'm not so sure this will be a huge political consensus.
He just wants the bauble, because Obama, Jimmy Carter and Martin Luther King got one
Trump wants to buy a fairly strong signifier of not being a shit with no redeeming features while continuing to be a shit with no redeeming features. It fits in with his everything is for sale ethos.
The fallout from Trump/Vance versus Zelensky is that it just got ten times harder for a European panel to nominate Trump for any kind of peace prize.
It may be Starmer's appeasement of Trump and offer of a state visit will win back a few voters lost to Reform but voters concerned about Trump and Farage's closeness to him in particular likely go LD or Green not Labour. So they the LDs and Greens could be the biggest winners
Are you discounting the possibility they may stay with the Tories?
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
It's a shame that the Assad regime fell, as that regime protected minorities. The present regime are ISIS adjacent, and letting out ISIS (from their SDF captors) is likely to be the next step.
And we wonder why Trump questions liberal interventionism?
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
There is no clear route to peace at the moment. A frozen conflict will leave the Russians free to commit genocide in the occupied areas, as they no longer need to fight a war. It will leave them free to rearm, to achieve their war aim which is the subjugation of the Ukrainian nation. And the murder of those who refuse to cooperate. To my mind, a just and lasting peace needs the defeat of Russia. The war should continue. More Russians need to die. The aim of a war is to win it.
The only critique I'd agree with (the only one) of the Ukraine sceptics is that Russia is on the verge of giving up.
I don't think it is - even though we wish it would: there are echoes of the wishful thinking behind Kamila Harris's inevitable victory here.
However, we must back Ukraine for as long as it takes until they give up. And that could be another 10 years.
Agreed completely.
I don't know when Russia will fall, it could be within the year or it could be ten years from now, but we should stand firm until they do.
However what I do firmly believe is they are closer to that point now than they were in 2022. Much closer.
Maybe the day will come when Ukrainians don't want to fight anymore, and if that day comes then I would respect their choice. But unless or until that choice of theirs is made, and unless or until Russia is defeated, we should unconditionally remain steadfast supporters of Ukraine to continue the fight as long as they see fit.
And give them every bit of support we can and that they need to bleed Russia dry, as they're currently doing.
It will be in the interest of wider America, as well as Europe, for Russia to fail economically. If Trump allies himself to Putin, a failed Putin will weaken and embarrass Trump.
The worst thing about this Ramadan this year is that Eid is likely to be at weekend and I cannot use work to get out of going to the mosque.
When I worked in 24x7 ops, our Muslim colleagues all volunteered for night shifts during Ramadan. It turns out fasting during daylight hours is a damn sight easier if you are asleep after working nights.
I believe those travelling are allowed to break the fast. This includes those traveling by car, ship, airplane, or camel.
Get yourself a camel, TSE. That will be quite the commute...
At the weekend, it’s likely to be a rail replacement camel.
Not to be loose or hump shunted...
For Cross Country replacement, bacteria camels.
But, rather disappointingly, this camel didn't have a saddle tank to carry water in.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
He said that the expense was a long way behind stopping the killing. Great farmland though Ukraine no doubt has, it is bodies, said Trump, that are stopping the bullets.
He says he wants to stop the killing as a primary aim. I have no doubt he also wants to go down in history as the Peacemaker President who touched the world with his hands and, lo, the world reacted. But he said he wanted to stop the killing.
He has no interest in stopping the killing. It doesn't even enter into his mind that it matters if lots of Ukranians, Russians and anyone else dies. He wouldn't even care if lots of Americans died as long as it didn't affect his own prospects, wealth and ego.
This is the lesson that some on here have not yet learnt. Maybe because they don't want to face it. Trump has no interest in helping or protecting Ukraine or Europe. His interests are purely transactional and we don't matter. All these questions about how or whether we will be able to defend against Russia or help Uraine are based on the erroneous assumption that there is a choice, that Trump will be persuaded to change his mind and help in our defence. He won't.
Once you accept that you realise that it is not a quastion of whether we want to rearm and challenge Putin. It is simple fact that we have to. And the best way to ensure my son and daughter don't end up having to fight in Europe is to make sure Putin loses - or at least fails to succeed - in Ukraine.
I think he wants a peaceful world because conflict detracts attention from him. He wants to stride the world with all eyes on his best ever trade deals.
But he has also said that he wants people to stop dying in large numbers in Ukraine. I don't have a huge problem in reconciling the two views.
As for Europe rearming I'm not so sure this will be a huge political consensus.
He just wants the bauble, because Obama, Jimmy Carter and Martin Luther King got one
Trump wants to buy a fairly strong signifier of not being a shit with no redeeming features while continuing to be a shit with no redeeming features. It fits in with his everything is for sale ethos.
The fallout from Trump/Vance versus Zelensky is that it just got ten times harder for a European panel to nominate Trump for any kind of peace prize.
The fallout from Trump/Vance is that over 30 seconds on Friday Trump lost any chance he ever had of receiving a Nobel award given those who award it are sat in a country threatened by Russia.
On topic, the Sunday Rawnsley, coming to you via the island enjoying the sun shining in a blue sky glistening over a tranquil blue sea:
Most Labour people don’t quarrel with the argument that Britain has to put up its guard, but a lot of them, including queasy members of the Starmer cabinet, are wriggling uncomfortably about taking the hatchet to the international development budget.
The short explanation for this transmogrification is two words and an initial: Donald J Trump. The upheaval in the international order unleashed by the US president has shattered decades-old assumptions about the western alliance. Boosting defence spending is both a response to Trump’s demands that Europe pulls its weight and an insurance policy against the withdrawal of American security guarantees. The shocking ugliness of the televised scene [of Zelensky and Trump] amplified Number 10’s unspoken fears that the Trump regime poses an existential challenge to European security.
Though the prime minister claims he did not take this decision “lightly”, the international development budget was targeted because Downing Street and the Treasury reckoned it was the politically least painful option. [Yet] the case for spending on aid is easily made. On top of the humanitarian good it does, there’s the mitigation against instability, conflict and extremism. It also helps win friends and influence people in other countries who can be useful to the UK in the projection and protection of our national interests.
I am being generous when I say that it is disingenuous of Sir Keir and his loyalists to suggest that they were faced with an either/or choice between defence spending in the name of national security and non-defence spending in troubled and distressed places abroad. The UK is an affluent country that likes to think it can punch above its weight. Even when money is tight, this nation is wealthy enough to wield both hard power and soft power.
The face of Britain that the Starmer government is now presenting to the world is one that aspires to be more muscular while also looking meaner. Muscular is necessary in the scary new world order. Meaner is a myopic mistake that will render Britain less safe.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
There is no clear route to peace at the moment. A frozen conflict will leave the Russians free to commit genocide in the occupied areas, as they no longer need to fight a war. It will leave them free to rearm, to achieve their war aim which is the subjugation of the Ukrainian nation. And the murder of those who refuse to cooperate. To my mind, a just and lasting peace needs the defeat of Russia. The war should continue. More Russians need to die. The aim of a war is to win it.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
There is no clear route to peace at the moment. A frozen conflict will leave the Russians free to commit genocide in the occupied areas, as they no longer need to fight a war. It will leave them free to rearm, to achieve their war aim which is the subjugation of the Ukrainian nation. And the murder of those who refuse to cooperate. To my mind, a just and lasting peace needs the defeat of Russia. The war should continue. More Russians need to die. The aim of a war is to win it.
Sure, but other than being 'free' to do so, you have provided no explanation of why such a scale of slaughter is remotely plausible.
I find it likelier that the two sides of the border will compete to show the other how much better life is on the other side - that is my hope for the people of Ukraine at any rate.
The only critique I'd agree with (the only one) of the Ukraine sceptics is that Russia is on the verge of giving up.
I don't think it is - even though we wish it would: there are echoes of the wishful thinking behind Kamila Harris's inevitable victory here.
However, we must back Ukraine for as long as it takes until they give up. And that could be another 10 years.
If it were, and of course they wouldn't 'give up' per se, but collapse inward, it isn't now thanks to Trump. You can only run a war economy for so long without serious help. There were limited signs Russia was in a bad place.
However, now Putin knows Trump wants out ASAP and may even lift sanctions to do deals to bring Russia in from the cold, they can happily grind on safe in the knowledge that the pressure will lift before too long.
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
You say you despise Bibi, but you seem to defend everything he does. Could you tell me 5 things the Netanyahu government has done that you don’t support?
I totally support Israel's right to defend herself, I do not support the government, the two are completely different things.
Just as successive British Prime Ministers have backed Ukraine and I support all of those Prime Ministers doing the right thing on that one matter, even though they were completely different people who had very different views on other matters.
5 things? Here we go.
1. His corruption. 2. His attacks on the judiciary. 3. Reportedly turning a blind eye to weapons and money being smuggled to Hamas. 4. Refusal to talk to more moderate Palestinian voices and indirectly but deliberately promoting hardliners like Hamas. 5. Siding with Russia and other enemies of the democratic West.
I could go on.
Far from being a strong leader who has sought to defeat Israel's enemies, which I would support, Netanyahu has been a corrupt leader who has tried to prolong conflicts by allowing hardliners to flourish and marginalise more moderate voices, so that he can play against the hardliners.
The hardliners in Hamas need to be crushed, not kept on life-support. Then we can move on.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
There is no clear route to peace at the moment. A frozen conflict will leave the Russians free to commit genocide in the occupied areas, as they no longer need to fight a war. It will leave them free to rearm, to achieve their war aim which is the subjugation of the Ukrainian nation. And the murder of those who refuse to cooperate. To my mind, a just and lasting peace needs the defeat of Russia. The war should continue. More Russians need to die. The aim of a war is to win it.
Sure, but other than being 'free' to do so, you have provided no explanation of why such a scale of slaughter is remotely plausible.
I find it likelier that the two sides of the border will compete to show the other how much better life is on the other side - that is my hope for the people of Ukraine at any rate.
Its plausible because that's what Russia has already done every time.
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
You say you despise Bibi, but you seem to defend everything he does. Could you tell me 5 things the Netanyahu government has done that you don’t support?
I totally support Israel's right to defend herself, I do not support the government, the two are completely different things.
Just as successive British Prime Ministers have backed Ukraine and I support all of those Prime Ministers doing the right thing on that one matter, even though they were completely different people who had very different views on other matters.
5 things? Here we go.
1. His corruption. 2. His attacks on the judiciary. 3. Reportedly turning a blind eye to weapons and money being smuggled to Hamas. 4. Refusal to talk to more moderate Palestinian voices and indirectly but deliberately promoting hardliners like Hamas. 5. Siding with Russia and other enemies of the democratic West.
I could go on.
Far from being a strong leader who has sought to defeat Israel's enemies, which I would support, Netanyahu has been a corrupt leader who has tried to prolong conflicts by allowing hardliners to flourish and marginalise more moderate voices, so that he can play against the hardliners.
The hardliners in Hamas need to be crushed, not kept on life-support. Then we can move on.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
He said that the expense was a long way behind stopping the killing. Great farmland though Ukraine no doubt has, it is bodies, said Trump, that are stopping the bullets.
He says he wants to stop the killing as a primary aim. I have no doubt he also wants to go down in history as the Peacemaker President who touched the world with his hands and, lo, the world reacted. But he said he wanted to stop the killing.
He has no interest in stopping the killing. It doesn't even enter into his mind that it matters if lots of Ukranians, Russians and anyone else dies. He wouldn't even care if lots of Americans died as long as it didn't affect his own prospects, wealth and ego.
This is the lesson that some on here have not yet learnt. Maybe because they don't want to face it. Trump has no interest in helping or protecting Ukraine or Europe. His interests are purely transactional and we don't matter. All these questions about how or whether we will be able to defend against Russia or help Uraine are based on the erroneous assumption that there is a choice, that Trump will be persuaded to change his mind and help in our defence. He won't.
Once you accept that you realise that it is not a quastion of whether we want to rearm and challenge Putin. It is simple fact that we have to. And the best way to ensure my son and daughter don't end up having to fight in Europe is to make sure Putin loses - or at least fails to succeed - in Ukraine.
I think he wants a peaceful world because conflict detracts attention from him. He wants to stride the world with all eyes on his best ever trade deals.
But he has also said that he wants people to stop dying in large numbers in Ukraine. I don't have a huge problem in reconciling the two views.
As for Europe rearming I'm not so sure this will be a huge political consensus.
He just wants the bauble, because Obama, Jimmy Carter and Martin Luther King got one
Trump wants to buy a fairly strong signifier of not being a shit with no redeeming features while continuing to be a shit with no redeeming features. It fits in with his everything is for sale ethos.
The fallout from Trump/Vance versus Zelensky is that it just got ten times harder for a European panel to nominate Trump for any kind of peace prize.
Yep, if a (I assume) fairly hard nosed fuel supply company is refusing to refuel your navy, how are the Euro libs going to feel?
The worst thing about this Ramadan this year is that Eid is likely to be at weekend and I cannot use work to get out of going to the mosque.
When I worked in 24x7 ops, our Muslim colleagues all volunteered for night shifts during Ramadan. It turns out fasting during daylight hours is a damn sight easier if you are asleep after working nights.
I believe those travelling are allowed to break the fast. This includes those traveling by car, ship, airplane, or camel.
Get yourself a camel, TSE. That will be quite the commute...
At the weekend, it’s likely to be a rail replacement camel.
Not to be loose or hump shunted...
For Cross Country replacement, bacteria camels.
But, rather disappointingly, this camel didn't have a saddle tank to carry water in.
We need to increase funding to the BBC. And setup programmes that can flood the zone with facts. Outgun the Russian bots and their minions and beat them at their own game.
We need to increase funding to the BBC. And setup programmes that can flood the zone with facts. Outgun the Russian bots and their minions and beat them at their own game.
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
It's a shame that the Assad regime fell, as that regime protected minorities. The present regime are ISIS adjacent, and letting out ISIS (from their SDF captors) is likely to be the next step.
And we wonder why Trump questions liberal interventionism?
"It's a shame that the Assad regime fell, as that regime protected minorities."
Comrade, it is this sort of comment that makes me wonder how much the Kremlin is paying you, as it is pure Russian propaganda.
Assad was no respecter of minorities - except, that is, for his own minority, the Alawites, and especially the minority formed by his own family. By all means hate ISIS - and we all do - but don't pretend that Assad was good, or even better. He was a murderous shit whose only good side, according to some, was that he was friends with Russia.
As for the new government: let us wait and see what they do. Scepticism is warranted. But HTS are not the only group who won the civil war, and if a descent back into civil war is to be avoided, the government needs to appeal not only to its base, but also those other groups and the wider west.
But so far, they appear to be doing better so far than Assad did. The first transitional government ended on the first, as planned, and see what happens with the new constitution and elections. *That* will be the test. For the sake of the Syrian people, I hope they pass that test.
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
It's a shame that the Assad regime fell, as that regime protected minorities. The present regime are ISIS adjacent, and letting out ISIS (from their SDF captors) is likely to be the next step.
And we wonder why Trump questions liberal interventionism?
I think its fantastic that the Assad regime fell, even if the replacement regime is no better.
Chaos and instability is a good thing, when it comes to replacing evil. The more chaos and instability the better.
Sure the replacement may be no better, it may even be worse, but if so it should be fought and fall and rinse and repeat until something better eventually comes around.
Stability of evil is not a good thing. Evolution and improvement comes from chaos, comes from change.
The problem is that some people think that a bad regime falling is the end of the matter and the replacement should be welcomed with open arms, that is naïve. A bad regime falling is to be welcomed, but the replacement is to be treated cautiously and sceptically until it proves its intentions.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
There is no clear route to peace at the moment. A frozen conflict will leave the Russians free to commit genocide in the occupied areas, as they no longer need to fight a war. It will leave them free to rearm, to achieve their war aim which is the subjugation of the Ukrainian nation. And the murder of those who refuse to cooperate. To my mind, a just and lasting peace needs the defeat of Russia. The war should continue. More Russians need to die. The aim of a war is to win it.
Sure, but other than being 'free' to do so, you have provided no explanation of why such a scale of slaughter is remotely plausible.
I find it likelier that the two sides of the border will compete to show the other how much better life is on the other side - that is my hope for the people of Ukraine at any rate.
Its plausible because that's what Russia has already done every time.
Your hopecasting doesn't change that.
The record of Moscow governments on giving their citizens freedom to experience the joys of another state aren't brilliant.
Besides, governments who want to show their people that they have it better than their neighbours have two broad strategies.
One is to make life good for their people. The other is to lie their socks off. The second is easier, cheaper and more reliable if you're shameless enough.
Anyhow, in other news, we’re now in the exciting build up to Crufts later this week. I’m sure you all can’t wait to get the latest news from the world’s greatest doggie show…
We need to increase funding to the BBC. And setup programmes that can flood the zone with facts. Outgun the Russian bots and their minions and beat them at their own game.
We need to increase funding to the BBC. And setup programmes that can flood the zone with facts. Outgun the Russian bots and their minions and beat them at their own game.
Fuck that. We need to abolish the license fee and let the BBC find their own funding. Subscription, ads or whatever.
Direct taxation on either internet access or via the council tax.
Take your pick one or the other is coming..
Neither, let people choose to subscribe and if they choose not to that's their free choice.
The World Service has strategic value and should be funded by the state
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
There is no clear route to peace at the moment. A frozen conflict will leave the Russians free to commit genocide in the occupied areas, as they no longer need to fight a war. It will leave them free to rearm, to achieve their war aim which is the subjugation of the Ukrainian nation. And the murder of those who refuse to cooperate. To my mind, a just and lasting peace needs the defeat of Russia. The war should continue. More Russians need to die. The aim of a war is to win it.
Sure, but other than being 'free' to do so, you have provided no explanation of why such a scale of slaughter is remotely plausible.
I find it likelier that the two sides of the border will compete to show the other how much better life is on the other side - that is my hope for the people of Ukraine at any rate.
Its plausible because that's what Russia has already done every time.
Your hopecasting doesn't change that.
The record of Moscow governments on giving their citizens freedom to experience the joys of another state aren't brilliant.
Besides, governments who want to show their people that they have it better than their neighbours have two broad strategies.
One is to make life good for their people. The other is to lie their socks off. The second is easier, cheaper and more reliable if you're shameless enough.
Indeed and the second relies upon repression and potentially murdering anyone who knows or tells the truth.
We need to increase funding to the BBC. And setup programmes that can flood the zone with facts. Outgun the Russian bots and their minions and beat them at their own game.
Fuck that. We need to abolish the license fee and let the BBC find their own funding. Subscription, ads or whatever.
Direct taxation on either internet access or via the council tax.
Take your pick one or the other is coming..
Neither, let people choose to subscribe and if they choose not to that's their free choice.
The World Service has strategic value and should be funded by the state
The World Service is funded by the state.
Eastenders and Match of the Day and Homes Under the Hammer have no strategic value and should not be paid by taxpayers.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
The deliberate, documented killings in the occupied areas run in to tens of thousands. Given that is 20% of the country, what do you expect in the other 80%?
Anyhow, in other news, we’re now in the exciting build up to Crufts later this week. I’m sure you all can’t wait to get the latest news from the world’s greatest doggie show…
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
There is no clear route to peace at the moment. A frozen conflict will leave the Russians free to commit genocide in the occupied areas, as they no longer need to fight a war. It will leave them free to rearm, to achieve their war aim which is the subjugation of the Ukrainian nation. And the murder of those who refuse to cooperate. To my mind, a just and lasting peace needs the defeat of Russia. The war should continue. More Russians need to die. The aim of a war is to win it.
Sure, but other than being 'free' to do so, you have provided no explanation of why such a scale of slaughter is remotely plausible.
I find it likelier that the two sides of the border will compete to show the other how much better life is on the other side - that is my hope for the people of Ukraine at any rate.
Its plausible because that's what Russia has already done every time.
Your hopecasting doesn't change that.
The record of Moscow governments on giving their citizens freedom to experience the joys of another state aren't brilliant.
Besides, governments who want to show their people that they have it better than their neighbours have two broad strategies.
One is to make life good for their people. The other is to lie their socks off. The second is easier, cheaper and more reliable if you're shameless enough.
IMV a major reason the Russian military failed to take Ukraine in early 2022 was that they had been lying to themselves. They had been telling themselves that they were the best, and the stronkiest, military in the world. Whatever enemy they came across would be defeated. Their media was apparently filled with this sort of self-aggrandisement.
And that's fine, *if* backed up by action. If you want to be the best, you need to work to be the best. You put in the effort. Just saying "We're the best" is pointless unless you actually put in the hard effort. On the whole, they did not. They deluded themselves.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
There is no clear route to peace at the moment. A frozen conflict will leave the Russians free to commit genocide in the occupied areas, as they no longer need to fight a war. It will leave them free to rearm, to achieve their war aim which is the subjugation of the Ukrainian nation. And the murder of those who refuse to cooperate. To my mind, a just and lasting peace needs the defeat of Russia. The war should continue. More Russians need to die. The aim of a war is to win it.
Sure, but other than being 'free' to do so, you have provided no explanation of why such a scale of slaughter is remotely plausible.
I find it likelier that the two sides of the border will compete to show the other how much better life is on the other side - that is my hope for the people of Ukraine at any rate.
I then posted a link to a Wikipedia article. They have form. This is after all a country that thinks nothing of murdering its own citizens by throwing them into a meatgrinder of a war without suitable equipment, some of them already injured and disabled.
If they take over Ukraine, what will happen to Ukraine's intelligentsia, politicians, generals etc? Think Katyń. For a start.
On topic, the Sunday Rawnsley, coming to you via the island enjoying the sun shining in a blue sky glistening over a tranquil blue sea:
Most Labour people don’t quarrel with the argument that Britain has to put up its guard, but a lot of them, including queasy members of the Starmer cabinet, are wriggling uncomfortably about taking the hatchet to the international development budget.
The short explanation for this transmogrification is two words and an initial: Donald J Trump. The upheaval in the international order unleashed by the US president has shattered decades-old assumptions about the western alliance. Boosting defence spending is both a response to Trump’s demands that Europe pulls its weight and an insurance policy against the withdrawal of American security guarantees. The shocking ugliness of the televised scene [of Zelensky and Trump] amplified Number 10’s unspoken fears that the Trump regime poses an existential challenge to European security.
Though the prime minister claims he did not take this decision “lightly”, the international development budget was targeted because Downing Street and the Treasury reckoned it was the politically least painful option. [Yet] the case for spending on aid is easily made. On top of the humanitarian good it does, there’s the mitigation against instability, conflict and extremism. It also helps win friends and influence people in other countries who can be useful to the UK in the projection and protection of our national interests.
I am being generous when I say that it is disingenuous of Sir Keir and his loyalists to suggest that they were faced with an either/or choice between defence spending in the name of national security and non-defence spending in troubled and distressed places abroad. The UK is an affluent country that likes to think it can punch above its weight. Even when money is tight, this nation is wealthy enough to wield both hard power and soft power.
The face of Britain that the Starmer government is now presenting to the world is one that aspires to be more muscular while also looking meaner. Muscular is necessary in the scary new world order. Meaner is a myopic mistake that will render Britain less safe.
This country is wealthy enough but it does mean change which requires a combination of:
1) Higher taxation on property and the rich. 2) Lower spending on the old and the poor.
Cutting overseas aid is a step in cutting spending on the poor.
The overseas poor in this case.
The spending cuts on the UK poor will follow in time.
Anyhow, in other news, we’re now in the exciting build up to Crufts later this week. I’m sure you all can’t wait to get the latest news from the world’s greatest doggie show…
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
It's a shame that the Assad regime fell, as that regime protected minorities. The present regime are ISIS adjacent, and letting out ISIS (from their SDF captors) is likely to be the next step.
And we wonder why Trump questions liberal interventionism?
"It's a shame that the Assad regime fell, as that regime protected minorities."
Comrade, it is this sort of comment that makes me wonder how much the Kremlin is paying you, as it is pure Russian propaganda.
Assad was no respecter of minorities - except, that is, for his own minority, the Alawites, and especially the minority formed by his own family. By all means hate ISIS - and we all do - but don't pretend that Assad was good, or even better. He was a murderous shit whose only good side, according to some, was that he was friends with Russia.
As for the new government: let us wait and see what they do. Scepticism is warranted. But HTS are not the only group who won the civil war, and if a descent back into civil war is to be avoided, the government needs to appeal not only to its base, but also those other groups and the wider west.
But so far, they appear to be doing better so far than Assad did. The first transitional government ended on the first, as planned, and see what happens with the new constitution and elections. *That* will be the test. For the sake of the Syrian people, I hope they pass that test.
No, this is a flat out lie. The Druze minority that are now apparently under attack by the new regime (to the extent that Israel is using it to justify an incursion) were protected by the regime, as were the Christians (Assad even attended Easter prayers), as were the Alawites and other religious minorities. We can debate the merits or otherwise of the Assad regime, but you seeking to undermine acknowledged facts with known untruths isn't conducive to good debate.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
The deliberate, documented killings in the occupied areas run in to tens of thousands. Given that is 20% of the country, what do you expect in the other 80%?
On topic, the Sunday Rawnsley, coming to you via the island enjoying the sun shining in a blue sky glistening over a tranquil blue sea:
Most Labour people don’t quarrel with the argument that Britain has to put up its guard, but a lot of them, including queasy members of the Starmer cabinet, are wriggling uncomfortably about taking the hatchet to the international development budget.
The short explanation for this transmogrification is two words and an initial: Donald J Trump. The upheaval in the international order unleashed by the US president has shattered decades-old assumptions about the western alliance. Boosting defence spending is both a response to Trump’s demands that Europe pulls its weight and an insurance policy against the withdrawal of American security guarantees. The shocking ugliness of the televised scene [of Zelensky and Trump] amplified Number 10’s unspoken fears that the Trump regime poses an existential challenge to European security.
Though the prime minister claims he did not take this decision “lightly”, the international development budget was targeted because Downing Street and the Treasury reckoned it was the politically least painful option. [Yet] the case for spending on aid is easily made. On top of the humanitarian good it does, there’s the mitigation against instability, conflict and extremism. It also helps win friends and influence people in other countries who can be useful to the UK in the projection and protection of our national interests.
I am being generous when I say that it is disingenuous of Sir Keir and his loyalists to suggest that they were faced with an either/or choice between defence spending in the name of national security and non-defence spending in troubled and distressed places abroad. The UK is an affluent country that likes to think it can punch above its weight. Even when money is tight, this nation is wealthy enough to wield both hard power and soft power.
The face of Britain that the Starmer government is now presenting to the world is one that aspires to be more muscular while also looking meaner. Muscular is necessary in the scary new world order. Meaner is a myopic mistake that will render Britain less safe.
This country is wealthy enough but it does mean change which requires a combination of:
1) Higher taxation on property and the rich. 2) Lower spending on the old and the poor.
Cutting overseas aid is a step in cutting spending on the poor.
The overseas poor in this case.
The spending cuts on the UK poor will follow in time.
I think the answer is that savings in the international development budget can easily be made. The harder job of making substantial reductions in other budgets will then follow. It's not impossible that after that is done, money could be put back into international development, and defence funded from elsewhere
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
The deliberate, documented killings in the occupied areas run in to tens of thousands. Given that is 20% of the country, what do you expect in the other 80%?
Because there's a war?
The deliberate killing of civilians is not "because there's a war". It's because that's how they subjugate the local population
Polestar announced a $5,000 discount for Tesla drivers looking to lease the company's new Polestar 3 crossover. With that deal and another $15,000 of incentives to lessees, Tesla owners could get a $20,000 lease discount to become ex-Tesla owners.
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
It's a shame that the Assad regime fell, as that regime protected minorities. The present regime are ISIS adjacent, and letting out ISIS (from their SDF captors) is likely to be the next step.
And we wonder why Trump questions liberal interventionism?
"It's a shame that the Assad regime fell, as that regime protected minorities."
Comrade, it is this sort of comment that makes me wonder how much the Kremlin is paying you, as it is pure Russian propaganda.
Assad was no respecter of minorities - except, that is, for his own minority, the Alawites, and especially the minority formed by his own family. By all means hate ISIS - and we all do - but don't pretend that Assad was good, or even better. He was a murderous shit whose only good side, according to some, was that he was friends with Russia.
As for the new government: let us wait and see what they do. Scepticism is warranted. But HTS are not the only group who won the civil war, and if a descent back into civil war is to be avoided, the government needs to appeal not only to its base, but also those other groups and the wider west.
But so far, they appear to be doing better so far than Assad did. The first transitional government ended on the first, as planned, and see what happens with the new constitution and elections. *That* will be the test. For the sake of the Syrian people, I hope they pass that test.
No, this is a flat out lie. The Druze minority that are now apparently under attack by the new regime (to the extent that Israel is using it to justify an incursion) were protected by the regime, as were the Christians (Assad even attended Easter prayers), as were the Alawites and other religious minorities. We can debate the merits or otherwise of the Assad regime, but you seeking to undermine acknowledged facts with known untruths isn't conducive to good debate.
(Sighs theatrically)
You are regurgitating Russian propaganda that tried to make Assad out to be the good guy.
In reality, Assad did not protect Christians. He did not protest Alawites. He did not protect other religious minorities.
He protected people who were on his side. Not all Christians were pro-Assad. Not all Alawites were pro-Assad, etc, etc. And if they were not on his side, he did not care about their minority status. If you want to see the stupidity of your position, look at how Assad treated the Kurdish minority.
Why do you regurgitate Russian pro-Assad propaganda? Why did you regurgitate Russian propaganda over MH17? Why did you regurgitate Russian propaganda over Ukrainian Biolabs?
Why, when it comes to Russian propaganda, do you see it as the 'truth' rather than as propaganda?
When it comes to Russia, all you ever do is: "undermine acknowledged facts with known untruths."
Its funny Topping how during and after Covid you were able to recognise that "but people are dying" isn't a surefire argument winner to take away people's liberties, even temporarily, yet you seem to think "but people are dying" is a surefire argument winner to permanently subjugate people to living under a totalitarian dictatorship.
There are some fates worse than death. If people are willing to fight against dictatorships I respect that, I don't think that people are dying is a reason to end a just war.
That could very well be the most hypocritical and least self-aware comment that anybody has made on PB, ever. Well done to you.
Being a Ukrainian Ultra on pb.com requires a certain level of intellectual incoherence and unending attraction to amor fati. The following two lemmata must be simultaneously upheld:
1. The armed forces of the Russian Federation are so weak that a broken failed state that's a quarter of the size can, if supplied with endless amounts of money and weapons, inflict a stinging defeat of such magnitude that the invaders will be repelled and the Russian military threat will be neutralised in perpetuity.
2. The armed forces of the Russian Federation are so strong that the UK must embark on a socially ruinous program of rearmament or the double headed eagle, twice imperially crowned will be flying over Piccadilly Circus by next (Orthodox) Christmas.
As I noted yesterday, that contradiction applies in the opposite direction, too.
Anyhow, in other news, we’re now in the exciting build up to Crufts later this week. I’m sure you all can’t wait to get the latest news from the world’s greatest doggie show…
Imagine the French telling Washington & the Continental Army in Valley Forge, freezing, hungry & sick, "you don't have the cards, you're losing, so give us 1/2 the cotton & tobacco revenue from VA & make a deal with the British now. Oh yeah, they can keep NY and Boston."
It may be Starmer's appeasement of Trump and offer of a state visit will win back a few voters lost to Reform but voters concerned about Trump and Farage's closeness to him in particular likely go LD or Green not Labour. So they the LDs and Greens could be the biggest winners
The Conservatives will clearly be the net beneficiaries because they refused to kiss Trump's ring. Oh wait...
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
Isn't this Putin's argument? Continuous war simply avoids the necessity to make peace with your neighbours. Seems Masada is too far back in history for it to be remembered.
Putin is the aggressor.
I support the victim in fighting back, whether that victim be Ukraine or Israel.
But the Druze are not Israel or Israeli. Have they been co-opted or is this just a convenient method of continuing the war for personal political ends.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
The deliberate, documented killings in the occupied areas run in to tens of thousands. Given that is 20% of the country, what do you expect in the other 80%?
Because there's a war?
Sigh.
You don’t want to know, do you?
The Russians engaged in deliberately murdering prominent citizens, kidnapping children and also murdering citizens while looting etc etc.
This isn’t war. It’s War Crimes according to all the various treaties.
They did this throughout the areas occupied by Russian forces.
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
It's a shame that the Assad regime fell, as that regime protected minorities. The present regime are ISIS adjacent, and letting out ISIS (from their SDF captors) is likely to be the next step.
And we wonder why Trump questions liberal interventionism?
Boeing has been forced to halt all deliveries of its KC-46 tanker, based on the 767, after structural cracks were found in multiple new aircraft on delivery to the Air Force.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Donald Trump’s distaste for killing foreigners has been noted as one of his biggest failings by the PB panzer corps (armchair division) many times before. We are in truly dark times when a US President gets queasy about half a million deaths.
The ending of various USAID programmes is going to kill tens of thousands of foreigners. Trump has not the slightest problem with it.
I strongly doubt it. The ending of bizarre and troubling funding of such organisations as the BBC by USAID is certainly going to do very little harm.
"Now, Sudan’s Emergency Response Rooms, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2024 and already in 2025, are facing an 80% reduction in already-insufficient resources due to recent USAID cuts."
Mutual Aid Sudan is funded by the following organisations (ai)
The Coalition for Mutual Aid in Sudan is supported by 15 philanthropies and other organizations, including the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Center for Humanitarian Leadership, and the Center for Disaster Philanthropy.
Leaving aside the fact that anything with Bill Gates is a huge red flag to me, why can't the organisations that actually set up this initiative, who it would appear are not short of a bob or two, fund it?
We know you believe in conspiracy theories. If we didn’t, the fact the you think funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a “huge red flag” would tell us.
Bill Gates' publicly stated views and agenda are quite enough of a red flag to me, leaving aside anything else. I also note that his wife says she divorced him due to his association with Epstein, so I'm not sure he qualifies as the all-round nice guy you seem to suppose he is.
Prince Andrew has become the punchline of a joke due to his association with Epstein, but Bill still seems to be feted (by some) as a wonderful global philanthropist. Now having to do a bit more actual philanthropy because his charities are going to be given less grants by the US Government. Which we're meant to feel terrible about.
The Gates Foundation is an incredible organisation that has a massive impact. It’s also avowedly nonpolitical.
Of course it can partially replace some of the funding withdrawn from USAID but less good will be done as a result of that withdrawal.
But more than that, it was the *way* in which the programmes were terminated. Of course a democratically elected politician can determine their country’s priorities (although it should be done in compliance with the law). Fine - give 6 months notice to allow for an orderly wind down
Polish PM Donald Tusk, speaking before his flight to London for the European Ukraine summit:
“500 million Europeans are asking 300 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians. [...] Europe today lacks the belief that we are truly a global force.” https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1896187479092560179
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Well they could replicate Bucha. Or kidnap the children and indoctrinate them into hating their heritage.
That would be a start
(And the post I was replying to said “genocide” not an arbitrarily made up number. So GFY)
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
It's a shame that the Assad regime fell, as that regime protected minorities. The present regime are ISIS adjacent, and letting out ISIS (from their SDF captors) is likely to be the next step.
And we wonder why Trump questions liberal interventionism?
Assad supported ISIS and released ISIS prisoners.
Luckyguy is the Leondamus of historical analysis ?
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
It's a shame that the Assad regime fell, as that regime protected minorities. The present regime are ISIS adjacent, and letting out ISIS (from their SDF captors) is likely to be the next step.
And we wonder why Trump questions liberal interventionism?
Not only did Assad support ISIS, but Trump has threatened to abandon the SDF, who are the ones primarily responsible (with US help) for containing ISIS. The new government in Damascus has every reason to want ISIS defeated, unlike Assad.
Israel, for their own reasons, just want to scupper the chance of an end to the civil war in Syria.
I mean I've only seen the highlights but surely Trump is simply taking a side in one of the oldest and most difficult dilemmas. What is worth giving up to stop the killing.
Why is dealing with that impossible question so reprehensible.
We see it in aid all the time (enable/support the tyrants to get food to the citizens..)
Yes, he’s decided that giving up Ukraine is worth it to stem the expense to the US. The democratically elected government of Ukraine - along with the opposition, judging by their public comments yesterday, disagree.
Chuck into the mix Europe’s future security, which the US has apparently decided is no longer a matter for them, then a polite no thanks is in order. No skin in the game, no say.
All that, of course, is predicated on Europe getting its shit together over the next few days and weeks.
I would like to see Europe get its shit together in the next 24 hours.
The billions the UK promised yesterday are a good start.
Lets show the Americans we can help defeat Russia with or without them - but if its without them, they don't get a say in what happens afterwards.
What jobs will guarantee exemption from being called up to fight in this proposed EU war against Russia? I'll get my lads writing their job applications out ASAP.
Who said anything about the EU? Or war with Russia?
Russia is a small country, it is smaller than Italy economically. It is not some mighty bear that we should be afraid of.
Ukraine is able to defeat Russia with our backing, we have no reason or need to go to war, just continue to support Ukraine.
Do you think what is happening now (what you want to continue with) is going to allow Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Eventually, yes.
And that is a legitimate view, if misguided in my mind. It means thousands more deaths of people that are not you or your family but so be it. Trump's is that he wants the killing to stop. With all the compromises that involves. Why is that view so reprehensible.
Trump doesn't want the killing to stop. He wants Ukraine to surrender, after which hundreds of thousands will be killed by Russia. Stopping the war doesn't bring peace, it enables genocide.
I think this probably needs a bit of an accompanying explainer?
Not for anyone who has been paying attention for the last decade
Well given that you seem to think that's what you've been doing, perhaps you will favour us with an explanation of how demographically challenged Russia, having achieved all its territorial ambitions, is going to slaughter 200,000+ innocents.
Historically, conquering armies have had little trouble in massacring civilians.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I can well believe that they plan to do all those horrible things. But none of them amount to killing hundreds of thousands, or anything like. That's why I asked for an explanation, and why I wasn't surprised not to get one.
May be we can work to the internationally accepted definition of “genocide” rather than the pretendy straw man made up by a Russian sympathising conspiracy theorist such as yourself?
Israeli forces are preparing to advance toward Damascus, Syria, to defend the Druze suburb of Jaramana, currently under attack by the Syrian regime (HTS).
Good for Israel. Hope they can protect the Druze.
No doubt @bondegezou will be along before long to repeat his spin that Israel is attacking peaceful Syria unprovoked (despite them being legally at war), that the new regime are peaceful and have done nothing wrong (despite them being proscribed terrorists in this country before they took over) and that the Druze don't need protection.
Anything to blame Israel, plus ça change.
You are responding to a williamglenn post. You don’t think he might have selected a tweet from a somewhat biased source? Are you really that naive?
Oh I know full well he might have.
Not as naïve as the individual who claimed with a straight face that Israel is not at war with Syria. Who was that again?
Israel and Syria are legally at war, but there has been a UN-overseen ceasefire for decades. Israel has now repeatedly attacked Syria, unprovoked. They marched into the UN buffer zone. They have repeatedly bombed Syria. This is landgrab.
They are at war, yes. Ceasefire is meaningless, just ask the Ukrainians.
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
It’s a ceasefire that’s held for, I think, longer than you’ve been alive. To dismiss it is naive.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Yet not a ceasefire that led to a peace treaty so the status of war is still valid.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
It's a shame that the Assad regime fell, as that regime protected minorities. The present regime are ISIS adjacent, and letting out ISIS (from their SDF captors) is likely to be the next step.
And we wonder why Trump questions liberal interventionism?
Not only did Assad support ISIS, but Trump has threatened to abandon the SDF, who are the ones primarily responsible (with US help) for containing ISIS. The new government in Damascus has every reason to want ISIS defeated, unlike Assad.
Israel, for their own reasons, just want to scupper the chance of an end to the civil war in Syria.
That's a collection of statements that bear no relation to each other or to the truth.
Comments
Syria is now under the control of what was a formerly proscribed terrorist organisation that has been nihilistic towards Israel and in favour of Israel's destruction. If grabbing land from their enemy they're at war with aids their survival, then good for them!
“BBC Media Action was founded in 1999 by the BBC as its international development charity. We apply the editorial standards of the BBC, build on its values and often work closely with the BBC World Service and other BBC departments. However, we are legally and financially independent and work to a distinct mission. Originally known as BBC World Service Trust, we changed our name to BBC Media Action in December 2011.”
1. Russia is a medium -sized bully that can be defeated if Western nations stand up to it.
2. Failure to stand up to it will see our friends and allies overrun.
SPD 33%
CDU 18%
Greens 17%
Left 12%
Afd 10%
BSW, FDP and Volt around 3% each.
Another SPD-Green coalition nailed on.
Meanwhile in the West and parts of the South, carnival is in full swing. Interesting to see what the Düsseldorf political floats are tomorrow, given how quickly things have been moving the last weeks.
A man who wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza is not a peacemaker.
Here's one that's been released early
That could apply to Starmer holding on to Trump to keep US sanctions against Russia and US arms supplies to Ukraine going, while Europe rearms independently of the US.
“Peace at any price” is not a position to be admired
- playing for time (peak rearmament in the U.K. was scheduled for 1941-42* - slightly before the planned German peak)
- an attempt to take the wind out of Hitlers sails by giving way on incorporating German populations into Germany. The theory went, if you get rid of the genuine issues, then it’s harder to push for war.
- A belief that a genuine attempt at peace was required. It might succeed (and save millions of lives) or it would guarantee unanimity in the country if war came.
*UK rearmament started in 1932. Before Hitler came to power. Kicked off by the Pocket Battleships being laid down.
One person was killed in Damascus and Israel are saying that justifies invasion. Netanyahu is like Trump and Putin.
Prince Andrew has become the punchline of a joke due to his association with Epstein, but Bill still seems to be feted (by some) as a wonderful global philanthropist. Now having to do a bit more actual philanthropy because his charities are going to be given less grants by the US Government. Which we're meant to feel terrible about.
“Musk voiced his support on X (formerly Twitter) on Saturday night when he responded “I agree” to a post stating, “It’s time to leave NATO and the UN.” His endorsement aligns with growing calls from some Republican lawmakers, including Senator Mike Lee, to reconsider the US commitment to the alliance.”
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/elon-musk-backs-us-withdrawal-from-nato-alliance/
I don't think it is - even though we wish it would: there are echoes of the wishful thinking behind Kamila Harris's inevitable victory here.
However, we must back Ukraine for as long as it takes until they give up. And that could be another 10 years.
Is he a nice guy? I have no idea. Is he wrapped up in the Epstein stuff? Again I have no idea. But neither do you.
What I do know is the work he and his foundation have been doing has been helping to save the lives of hundreds of thousands - probably millions - of people around the world.
And unless you are one of the anti-vaxxer conspiracy morons then it should be obvious to you as well.
In Ukraine, we have detailed, criminal case grade evidence of murders, expulsions and kidnapping of children in the areas occupied by Russia. En masse.9
In addition, the original plans for the Russian invasion were captured. They included mass arrests of the political and intellectual classes, as part of a plan to eliminate the idea of Ukraine as a separate state to Russia, culturally.
So you need to explain why you think that the Russians would behave differently in any areas of the Ukraine they conquer from now, to the way they behaved (and planned to behave) in those they have conquered.
I despise Netanyahu but the war predates him, and my birth, and the birth of almost everyone on this site.
The worst thing about this Ramadan this year is that Eid is likely to be at weekend and I cannot use work to get out of going to the mosque.
When I worked in 24x7 ops, our Muslim colleagues all volunteered for night shifts during Ramadan. It turns out fasting during daylight hours is a damn sight easier if you are asleep after working nights.
I believe those travelling are allowed to break the fast. This includes those traveling by car, ship, airplane, or camel.
Get yourself a camel, TSE. That will be quite the commute...
At the weekend, it’s likely to be a rail replacement camel.
Not to be loose or hump shunted...
For Cross Country replacement, bacteria camels.
I don't know when Russia will fall, it could be within the year or it could be ten years from now, but we should stand firm until they do.
However what I do firmly believe is they are closer to that point now than they were in 2022. Much closer.
Maybe the day will come when Ukrainians don't want to fight anymore, and if that day comes then I would respect their choice. But unless or until that choice of theirs is made, and unless or until Russia is defeated, we should unconditionally remain steadfast supporters of Ukraine to continue the fight as long as they see fit.
And give them every bit of support we can and that they need to bleed Russia dry, as they're currently doing.
And we wonder why Trump questions liberal interventionism?
I believe those travelling are allowed to break the fast. This includes those traveling by car, ship, airplane, or camel.
Get yourself a camel, TSE. That will be quite the commute...
At the weekend, it’s likely to be a rail replacement camel.
Not to be loose or hump shunted...
For Cross Country replacement, bacteria camels.
But, rather disappointingly, this camel didn't have a saddle tank to carry water in.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/192919404057?_trkparms=amclksrc=ITM&aid=1110006&algo=HOMESPLICE.SIM&ao=1&asc=279095&meid=3686310db9be4592b40711798bd41a90&pid=101224&rk=3&rkt=5&sd=362652369001&itm=192919404057&pmt=0&noa=1&pg=2332490&algv=DefaultOrganicWebV9BertRefreshRankerWithCassiniEmbRecall&_trksid=p2332490.c101224.m-1
***quoting messed up***
Most Labour people don’t quarrel with the argument that Britain has to put up its guard, but a lot of them, including queasy members of the Starmer cabinet, are wriggling uncomfortably about taking the hatchet to the international development budget.
The short explanation for this transmogrification is two words and an initial: Donald J Trump. The upheaval in the international order unleashed by the US president has shattered decades-old assumptions about the western alliance. Boosting defence spending is both a response to Trump’s demands that Europe pulls its weight and an insurance policy against the withdrawal of American security guarantees. The shocking ugliness of the televised scene [of Zelensky and Trump] amplified Number 10’s unspoken fears that the Trump regime poses an existential challenge to European security.
Though the prime minister claims he did not take this decision “lightly”, the international development budget was targeted because Downing Street and the Treasury reckoned it was the politically least painful option. [Yet] the case for spending on aid is easily made. On top of the humanitarian good it does, there’s the mitigation against instability, conflict and extremism. It also helps win friends and influence people in other countries who can be useful to the UK in the projection and protection of our national interests.
I am being generous when I say that it is disingenuous of Sir Keir and his loyalists to suggest that they were faced with an either/or choice between defence spending in the name of national security and non-defence spending in troubled and distressed places abroad. The UK is an affluent country that likes to think it can punch above its weight. Even when money is tight, this nation is wealthy enough to wield both hard power and soft power.
The face of Britain that the Starmer government is now presenting to the world is one that aspires to be more muscular while also looking meaner. Muscular is necessary in the scary new world order. Meaner is a myopic mistake that will render Britain less safe.
I find it likelier that the two sides of the border will compete to show the other how much better life is on the other side - that is my hope for the people of Ukraine at any rate.
However, now Putin knows Trump wants out ASAP and may even lift sanctions to do deals to bring Russia in from the cold, they can happily grind on safe in the knowledge that the pressure will lift before too long.
Just as successive British Prime Ministers have backed Ukraine and I support all of those Prime Ministers doing the right thing on that one matter, even though they were completely different people who had very different views on other matters.
5 things? Here we go.
1. His corruption.
2. His attacks on the judiciary.
3. Reportedly turning a blind eye to weapons and money being smuggled to Hamas.
4. Refusal to talk to more moderate Palestinian voices and indirectly but deliberately promoting hardliners like Hamas.
5. Siding with Russia and other enemies of the democratic West.
I could go on.
Far from being a strong leader who has sought to defeat Israel's enemies, which I would support, Netanyahu has been a corrupt leader who has tried to prolong conflicts by allowing hardliners to flourish and marginalise more moderate voices, so that he can play against the hardliners.
The hardliners in Hamas need to be crushed, not kept on life-support. Then we can move on.
Your hopecasting doesn't change that.
Get yourself a camel, TSE. That will be quite the commute...
At the weekend, it’s likely to be a rail replacement camel.
Not to be loose or hump shunted...
For Cross Country replacement, bacteria camels.
But, rather disappointingly, this camel didn't have a saddle tank to carry water in.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/192919404057?_trkparms=amclksrc=ITM&aid=1110006&algo=HOMESPLICE.SIM&ao=1&asc=279095&meid=3686310db9be4592b40711798bd41a90&pid=101224&rk=3&rkt=5&sd=362652369001&itm=192919404057&pmt=0&noa=1&pg=2332490&algv=DefaultOrganicWebV9BertRefreshRankerWithCassiniEmbRecall&_trksid=p2332490.c101224.m-1
***quoting messed up***
Yes, don’t know what happened there. Fat finger syndrome, probably.
Comrade, it is this sort of comment that makes me wonder how much the Kremlin is paying you, as it is pure Russian propaganda.
Assad was no respecter of minorities - except, that is, for his own minority, the Alawites, and especially the minority formed by his own family. By all means hate ISIS - and we all do - but don't pretend that Assad was good, or even better. He was a murderous shit whose only good side, according to some, was that he was friends with Russia.
As for the new government: let us wait and see what they do. Scepticism is warranted. But HTS are not the only group who won the civil war, and if a descent back into civil war is to be avoided, the government needs to appeal not only to its base, but also those other groups and the wider west.
But so far, they appear to be doing better so far than Assad did. The first transitional government ended on the first, as planned, and see what happens with the new constitution and elections. *That* will be the test. For the sake of the Syrian people, I hope they pass that test.
As an aside, many refugees are returning to Syria - something that started immediately after the war ended, but has continued. This seems to be a positive sign.
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/stories/returning-syrians-filled-hope-despite-challenges-ahead
Chaos and instability is a good thing, when it comes to replacing evil. The more chaos and instability the better.
Sure the replacement may be no better, it may even be worse, but if so it should be fought and fall and rinse and repeat until something better eventually comes around.
Stability of evil is not a good thing. Evolution and improvement comes from chaos, comes from change.
The problem is that some people think that a bad regime falling is the end of the matter and the replacement should be welcomed with open arms, that is naïve. A bad regime falling is to be welcomed, but the replacement is to be treated cautiously and sceptically until it proves its intentions.
Besides, governments who want to show their people that they have it better than their neighbours have two broad strategies.
One is to make life good for their people. The other is to lie their socks off. The second is easier, cheaper and more reliable if you're shameless enough.
As Moscow has repeatedly done.
Eastenders and Match of the Day and Homes Under the Hammer have no strategic value and should not be paid by taxpayers.
And that's fine, *if* backed up by action. If you want to be the best, you need to work to be the best. You put in the effort. Just saying "We're the best" is pointless unless you actually put in the hard effort. On the whole, they did not. They deluded themselves.
If they take over Ukraine, what will happen to Ukraine's intelligentsia, politicians, generals etc? Think Katyń. For a start.
1) Higher taxation on property and the rich.
2) Lower spending on the old and the poor.
Cutting overseas aid is a step in cutting spending on the poor.
The overseas poor in this case.
The spending cuts on the UK poor will follow in time.
Polestar announced a $5,000 discount for Tesla drivers looking to lease the company's new Polestar 3 crossover. With that deal and another $15,000 of incentives to lessees, Tesla owners could get a $20,000 lease discount to become ex-Tesla owners.
https://bsky.app/profile/wblau.bsky.social/post/3ljdfj5dvi225
You are regurgitating Russian propaganda that tried to make Assad out to be the good guy.
In reality, Assad did not protect Christians. He did not protest Alawites. He did not protect other religious minorities.
He protected people who were on his side. Not all Christians were pro-Assad. Not all Alawites were pro-Assad, etc, etc. And if they were not on his side, he did not care about their minority status. If you want to see the stupidity of your position, look at how Assad treated the Kurdish minority.
Why do you regurgitate Russian pro-Assad propaganda?
Why did you regurgitate Russian propaganda over MH17?
Why did you regurgitate Russian propaganda over Ukrainian Biolabs?
Why, when it comes to Russian propaganda, do you see it as the 'truth' rather than as propaganda?
When it comes to Russia, all you ever do is: "undermine acknowledged facts with known untruths."
Imagine the French telling Washington & the Continental Army in Valley Forge, freezing, hungry & sick, "you don't have the cards, you're losing, so give us 1/2 the cotton & tobacco revenue from VA & make a deal with the British now. Oh yeah, they can keep NY and Boston."
You don’t want to know, do you?
The Russians engaged in deliberately murdering prominent citizens, kidnapping children and also murdering citizens while looting etc etc.
This isn’t war. It’s War Crimes according to all the various treaties.
They did this throughout the areas occupied by Russian forces.
IF I EVER GET THERE
Boeing has been forced to halt all deliveries of its KC-46 tanker, based on the 767, after structural cracks were found in multiple new aircraft on delivery to the Air Force.
The discovery is also forcing the Air Force to inspect its entire fleet of 89 KC-46s for cracks.
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1895648284716515401
Of course it can partially replace some of the funding withdrawn from USAID but less good will be done as a result of that withdrawal.
But more than that, it was the *way* in which the programmes were terminated. Of course a democratically elected politician can determine their country’s priorities (although it should be done in compliance with the law). Fine - give 6 months notice to allow for an orderly wind down
Polish PM Donald Tusk, speaking before his flight to London for the European Ukraine summit:
“500 million Europeans are asking 300 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians. [...] Europe today lacks the belief that we are truly a global force.”
https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1896187479092560179
Europe to rearm asap.
Ukraine to go back to the US and sign the deal.
US gives security guarantee.
To me it seems a good plan, albeit fragile. Not sure there's much choice.
That would be a start
(And the post I was replying to said “genocide” not an arbitrarily made up number. So GFY)
Israel, for their own reasons, just want to scupper the chance of an end to the civil war in Syria.
I was just being a bit binary